Really enjoyed this wine, which I previously blogged on just over a year ago. It’s a fresh, lively red wine with a hint of savoury, spicy meatiness that makes me think it may have a little Brettanomyces character (read more about this here). But this brett, if it is present, is at a level that works well in the context of the wine, and the fruit still dominates. Many critics reject a wine with even a suspicion of brett. This is a shame. While brett can ruin wines (and often does), in small doses it can work, in the context of the right wine. The proof of the pudding in this case is that this bottle was finished in a single sitting.
Quinta das Maias 2008 Dao, Portugal
13.5% alcohol. 55% jaen, 20% touriga nacional, 10% alfrocheiro, 10% tinta amarela, 5% tinta roriz. Interesting stuff: fresh, lively black cherry and plum fruit with some floral spicy notes, as well as a hint of savoury, spicy meatiness. Lovely dark fruits dominate, but it’s also quite savoury in style. Drinking very well now. 90/100 (£10.95 The Wine Society)
It seems that Brett, if present in any amount, only adds character to the Old World, while in the rest of the wine world it’s regard as a fault and avoided at all costs. Perhaps it’s just the region’s “terroir”?
Interesting! When does a feature or characteristic of a wine turn into a ‘fault’? And who gets to decide?
Anyone can decide if a wine is faulty, by whether they like it or not. I certainly don’t mind a bit of Brett and I’ve found that I can enjoy reds with higher levels of VA than might be considered the healthy cut-off.